Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
As someone who was in Gulf War 1, the key note in the comment is the following, "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish."
Exceeding the UN mandate. Remember the coalition was formed to execute the UN mandate and no more. I beleive we wanted him out, but under the terms of the UN we had to stop short of that goal. And don't forget the huge amount of politicing required to form that coalition.
Exceeding the UN mandate. Remember the coalition was formed to execute the UN mandate and no more. I beleive we wanted him out, but under the terms of the UN we had to stop short of that goal. And don't forget the huge amount of politicing required to form that coalition.
